Yes you are certainly free to receive financial compensation for loss of character. You do not need to have suffered a financial loss to sue for defamation, you only need to show that your reputation has suffered as a result.[/quote]

You said this already. The question I asked in response is, how do you place a value on the reputation for the purpose of compensation if not a measure of lost income?

[color=#ff0000]That is up to a court to decide. However Raven was arguing the point you made that you can only sue for defamation if you suffered a financial loss. This is false. You can sue for defamation if your character has been damaged.[/color]

[quote]The defense for libel is whether published comments are true, and in the public interest.[/quote]

The defense varies significantly with jurisdiction.[/quote]

Not so significantly, in every jurisdiction the truth is an absolute defence to defamation.[/quote]

No it is not, and the passage you quoted explains this.

[color=#ff0000]Yes it is. If what you say is the truth you cannot be sued for defamation[/color]

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold MemberOnline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41923
I like fish

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speechReply #79 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm

Quote:

The Court will decide what to award (in the case of no proven monetary loss) based on all the circumstances, not some 'carved in stone' algorithm.

Who said anything about algorithms Aussie? I just said it was based on loss of income. After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A MemberA Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance

IP Logged

freediver

Gold MemberOnline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41923
I like fish

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speechReply #82 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:38pm

Thanks for the question Aussie. Please quote me saying it the first time round, then I will tell you whether I "still" assert it.

Or, you could just keep things simple by sticking to what i actually say. Have you found the quote button yet?

After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

Thanks for the question Aussie. Please quote me saying it the first time round, then I will tell you whether I "still" assert it.

Or, you could just keep things simple by sticking to what i actually say. Have you found the quote button yet?

After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

Your words:

Quote:

I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money....

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A MemberA Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance

IP Logged

freediver

Gold MemberOnline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41923
I like fish

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speechReply #84 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:43pm

That wasn't so hard, was it Aussie.

Do you assert anything different? So far none of you have been prepared to suggest an alternative means by which the court arrives at damages.

After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A MemberA Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance

IP Logged

freediver

Gold MemberOnline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41923
I like fish

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speechReply #86 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust?

How many times must I do that for you freediver? I have agreed with that.

What you originally said (and it was a lie) was that he was jailed for denying the holocaust. Are you now denying you said that, freediver?

Quote:

Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?

No, I did not. I highlighted your lie, one you offered to suit, yet again, your personal agenda.

Thanks Raven. I thought it might be some kind of lottery. Do you think the courts might award damages based on financial loss suffered?

Are you attempting to argue that you can technically sue for defamation regardless of financial loss, but if there is no financial aspect, you get no damages?

The courts can certainly award damages for financial loss if you can prove said loss.

And no Raven is not arguing that as you well know. There is no legislation in any jurisdiction in Australia that says you must have suffered financial loss to sue for defamation. Your original statement that you can only sue if you suffered financial loss is false

If Raven told told a third party that you like to molest horses you could sue Raven for defamation.